This reference petition challenged the Tribunal's refusal to refer a question of law regarding the imposition of a redemption fine. The High Court held that the question did not arise and, in any event, dismissed the reference, upholding the fine.
Reference dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
1/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1997
Inter Gold (India) Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 formerly known as Inter Gold (India) Private Limited having its Registered office at SEPZ, Andheri(W), Mumbai 400 049.
...Petitioner.
vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II, 8th floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Jigibhoy Lane, Parel, Mumbai 400 012.
...Respondent.
Mr. H. Daruwala along with Ms. Nikita Vardhan i/by Kanga & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Rao along with Mr. S. D. Bhosale for the Respondent.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
Reserved on : 28 January 2014. Pronounced on : 4 April 2014.
CAV JUDGMENT :( Per M.S. Sanklecha, J.)
This petition is filed under erstwhile Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Act”) from the order dated 16 September 1996 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) rejecting the petitioner's application under the erstwhile
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
2/16
Section 130(1) of the Act seeking to refer the following questions of law to this Court.
(i) Whether cut and polished diamonds manufactured in a SEPZ area can be said to be dutiable goods at all having regard to (I) Entry No.7101.10 (Chapter 7) of the Central Excise Tariff (ii) Notification No.247/76 dated 2 August 1976?
(ii) Whether Section III (i) could be invoked even in a case where the purported action of an employee was unauthorized?
(iv) What are the principles of law and how is discretion to be exercised for determining fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962?
i) Can the Tribunal impose a heavy redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs on the owner of the goods, once it holds:-
(a) that the owner of the goods had acted in a bona fide manner;
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
3/16
(b) that it does not want to hold the owner of the goods vicariously liable to penalty; and (c) it refrains from imposing any penalty upon the owner of the goods?
ii) What are the principles of law and how is discretion to be exercised for determining redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act,1962 and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in levying any fine in respect of the goods belonging to the petitioner?
iii) Can the Tribunal adjudicate upon and give a finding with regard to the conduct of a person in respect of whom there is no appeal before it. Particularly when the said finding is contrary to the finding arrived at by the original adjudicating authority whose order has been accepted by both sides?
iv) Can the Tribunal, after expressing its desire to put the fear of law in the mind of over enthusiastic employee, indirectly penalize the employer who is the owner of the goods by imposing a very heavy redemption fine, particularly when there is no appeal being adjudicated by the Tribunal in respect of such employee?
ASN
4/16
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
v) In determining the quantum of redemption fine is the Tribunal required to consider its own finding with regard to the bonafide conduct of the owner of the goods?
vi) Can the Tribunal, when it wants to penalize an employee, impose a heavy redemption fine on the employer because there is no appeal pending before it in respect of the said employee?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in imposing the redemption fine of Rs.20,000,00/- on the confiscation, even though no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and that in the over all facts and circumstance of the case, no redemption fine was justified?
(a) The Petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), carrying on business of manufacture and export of Gold Jewellery and Polished diamonds. The Petitioner has its factory located at Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ);
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
5/16
(b) The Petitioner was granted Industrial License on 11th September 1989 for manufacture and export of Gold Jewellery and Polished diamonds as 100% EOU;
(c) In view of its status as 100% EOU, the petitioner was allowed to import goods without payment of customs duties subject to being used in manufacture of goods to be exported. The exemption from payment of duties of customs was extended under Customs Notification No.196/87 dated 5th May 1987;
(d) Being a 100% EOU, the Petitioner was required to keep a record of the goods imported without payment of duty, processed and finally exported;
(e) On 31st May, 1990, the Officers of Customs posted at the gate of SEEPZ, stopped a fiat car in which one – Mr. Manish Parekh, the petitioner's Manager (herein after referred to as 'Manager') was traveling along with a plastic bag. On examination of the plastic bag, it was found that the Manager was carrying 587.92 carats of cut and polished diamonds. The Manager was unable to produce any documents in support of his attempt to remove the 587.92 carats of diamonds from the export processing zone. Consequently, the 587.92 carats of cut and polished diamonds were seized. Statements were recorded not only of the Manager but also of the others. On completion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 19 November 1990 was issued to the petitioner and others including its Manager. The above notice
ASN
6/16
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
inter alia called upon the petitioner to show cause why duty of Rs.37.36 lacs on the seized goods should not be recovered and also confiscated. Besides calling upon the petitioner and its Manager why penalty should not be imposed upon them.
(f) By an order dated 16th December 1991, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dropped the show cause notice dated 19 November 1990 so far as it was issued to the petitioner. The adjudication order dated 16 December 1991 held that the seized diamonds are not liable for duty as the same was seized within the SEEPZ premises i.e. before being removed to the Domestic Tariff Act (DTA). It was also held that the seized diamonds are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(j) of the Act, as there was only a preparation and not an attempt to remove the diamonds from SEEPZ area and in fact no actual removal. However, even though the above order dated 16 December 1991 of the Collector of Central Excise dropped the proceedings against the petitioner, a penalty of Rs.20,000/was imposed under Section 112 of the Act upon its Manager;
(g) Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 16th December 1991, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. By an order dated 4 December 1995, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue holding that the seized diamonds are liable for confiscation under Section 111(j) of the Act. However, the confiscated diamonds having a market value of Rs.1.06 crores was allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs. Save and except the above modification, the order dated 16 December 1991
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
7/16
of the Collector of Central Excise was undisturbed.
(h) Consequent to the above order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed application under the erstwhile Section 130(1) of the Act, seeking the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law to the High Court:-
“(i) Whether cut and polished diamonds manufactured in a SEPZ area can be said to be dutiable goods at all having regard to (i) Entry No.7101.00 (Chapter 7) of the Central Excise Tariff (ii) Notification No.247/76 dated 2.8.1976.
(ii) Whether Sect. 111 (I) of the Act could be invoked even in a case where the purported action of an employee was unauthorized.
(iii) What are the principles of law and how is discretion to be exercised for determining fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
The Tribunal by its order dated 16 September 1996 rejected the above application. The Tribunal in its above order holds that Questions (i) and (ii) do not arise out of the order dated 4th December 1995 passed by the Tribunal and therefore, no referable question of law arises.
So far as Question (iii) is concerned, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application on the ground that the same does not give rise to question of law as it is a question of fact.
8/16
ASN
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
(i) As the petitioner's application to the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court was rejected the petitioner filed the present Petition under Section 130(3) of the Act. By this petition the petitioner requires the High Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions of law framed herein above along with the statement of case to this Court for its decision thereon.
ASN
9/16
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
D of the Act is an advisory jurisdiction. The Kerala High Court in C.I.T. v/s. Wondoor Jupiter Chits Pvt. Ltd. 213 ITR 73 - has while dealing with similar provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that it is not open to the High Court to dispose of the matter finally by answering the question proposed by the petitioner before it without having called upon the Tribunal to state the questions of law. However, as against the above, Delhi High Court in C.I.T. v/s. Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidyapeetham 232 ITR 170 held that when facts as contained in the order of the Tribunal passed on merits are not in dispute, the High Court can answer the question of law framed by it without calling for a statement of case from the Tribunal. The aforesaid view of the Delhi High Court has been followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.I.T. v/s. Munk Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 271 ITR 361.
6) Therefore, taking into account the above facts we find that the Delhi and Punjab High Courts have in identical situation disposed of the reference by answering the questions themselves without calling for the statement of case from the Tribunal. We agree with the the view of the Delhi High Court in Maharishi Vishwa Vidyapeetham (supra). Therefore, at the request and by consent of the Counsel for both the sides, the re-formulated question of law is taken up for consideration under Section 130(3) of the Act. In case we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in refusing to refer the question of law, at this stage itself we will answer the question of law under Section 130D of the Act. However, after we have answered the reference, the Tribunal would in accordance with the provisions of Section 130D of the Act will give effect to the same.
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
10/16
ASN
(a) That cut and polished diamonds were attempted to be removed unauthorizedly by the Manager of the Petitioner-Company from SEEPZ;
(b) The cut and polished diamonds were seized at the gate of SEEPZ i.e. just before removal to the DTA;
(c) No prior permission has been taken by the Petitioner or by its Manager for taking the cut and polished diamonds out of the SEEPZ area for sale or for approval or for export;
(d) The Manager of the petitioner was aware of the procedural requirements to be satisfied, before taking the cut and polished diamonds outside SEEPZ's area;
(e) In his first statement made during the seizure of diamonds, on 31 May 1990 the Manager does not state that the diamonds are being taken out of SEEPZ for being showing to a Japanese buyer, so as to obtain an order for export. This version of the goods being removed to be shown to a Japanese's buyer, was put forth later.
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
11/16
(f) There is no entry regarding removal of seized cut and polished diamonds on 31 May 1990 by its Manager in the record of the petitioner's factory
(g) The Chairman of the petitioner in his statement admits that there is an omission on the part of the petitioner's Manager and the petitioner is responsible for the omission.
(h) The benefit, if any, on account of the removal of the seized cut and polished diamonds would be obtained by the petitioner;
It is on the above facts that the Tribunal while confiscating the seized cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs.1.06 Crores allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs.20/- lacs.
ASN
12/16
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
(a) No penalty has been imposed by the Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has concluded that the conduct of the Petitioner is honest and bonafide. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the breach committed by its Manager;
(b) The Tribunal in its order held that the redemption fine is being imposed to put the fear of law in the mind of over enthusiastic employee of the petitioner who committed a mistake. In the circumstance, it is not fair to punish the petitioner by imposing redemption fine for redeeming the confiscated diamonds for acts of its Manager;
(c) No redemption fine is imposable upon the petitioner as the conduct of the Petitioner even according to the Tribunal was bonafide as is evident by not imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India 1990(47) ELT 213, the conduct of the parties is a relevant factor for determining the quantum of redemption fine;
(d) There is no conceivable motive on the part of the petitioner to remove the diamond into the DTA at the relevant time. This is so as no customs duty was payable on the import of rough diamond under the Act nor any excise duty was payable on the cut and polished diamond under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, there was no motive for the petitioner to remove the cut and polished diamonds from SEEPZ's area; and
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
13/16
(e) Redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs on diamond valued at Rs.35.5 lacs is harsh and excessive, keeping in mind the bona fide conduct of the petitioner.
(a) No question of law arises in the present case from the order of the Tribunal dated 4th December 1995;
(b) The imposition of redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs by the Tribunal was admittedly within the permissible limit provided under Section 125 of the Act which provides that the redemption fine should not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated less the duty payable on the imported goods;
(c) The Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that the action of the petitioner's Manager was done so as to benefit the Petitioner. Therefore, the redemption of the confiscated diamonds can only be done on payment of the redemption fine;
(d) The quantum of redemption fine has been arrived at by the Tribunal on appreciation of facts relating to the conduct of the parties. Therefore, the imposition of redemption fine at Rs.20 lacs cannot be found fault with as giving rise to a question of law;
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
14/16
(e) The excise duty payable on the cut and polished diamonds in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the quantum of customs duty payable under the Customs Tariff Act 1975. In this case, the duty payable by the petitioner on the removal of cut and polished diamonds would be 60% ad-volem and not nil. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioner had nothing to gain by surreptitiously removing the cut and polished diamonds without payment of duty;
(f) The quantum of redemption fine on the confiscated cut and polished diamonds is very reasonable, taking into account that the market value of seized diamonds is Rs.1.06 Crores and not Rs.35.05 lacs as urged by the petitioner.
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
ASN
15/16
Ltd. v/s. Union of India 66 ELT 537 (Jain Exports-II) and concluded that though the quantum of redemption fine would depend upon totality of the fact and circumstances of the case but merely because the importer acted in good faith will not entitle the importer to complete waiver of redemption fine. The Supreme Court also clarified that its earlier decision in the matter of D. Navinchandra (supra) and B. Vijaykumar (supra) did not lay down that if the conduct of the importer was beneficial then no redemption fine is to be imposed for allowing redemption of confiscated goods. In the present facts, there is no dispute that the seized cut and polished diamonds are liable for confiscation. In view of the Jain Exports -II (supra) decision, there can be no dispute that redemption fine is imposable on confiscated goods even if the conduct of the parties is bonafide.
ASN
16/16
Cust.Ref.No.1-97.doc
gate of SEEPZ. In this case, the market value of the goods is Rs.1.06 Crores. The benefit of which the petitioner would obtain by the illegal conduct of its Manager would have resulted in non-payment of excise duty which is equivalent to customs duty i.e. 60% ad-valorem. The petitioner being a limited company cannot act but through the human agency of its Directors, Manager and Workers. Therefore, the submissions of the petitioner that it cannot held liable for the acts of its Manager/employees is unacceptable. The confiscation of the diamonds and the redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs on the confiscated diamond was reached taking into account the overall facts and appreciation of evidence on record. This finding is not shown to be arbitrary and/or perverse. We are conscious of the fact that we are not sitting in appeal over the order dated 4 December 1995 passed by the Tribunal on merits.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is bound to direct a statement of case to the Tribunal or can decide the legal question itself under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act.
Whether a redemption fine is imposable under Section 125 of the Customs Act even when the confiscation arises from the bona fide conduct of an employee.
Whether the quantum of the redemption fine imposed by the Tribunal on the petitioner was arbitrary or perverse given the facts of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.I.T. v/s. Wondoor Jupiter Chits Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶75
C.I.T. v/s. Wondoor Jupiter Chits Pvt. Ltd. 213 ITR 73
C.I.T. v/s. Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vishwa VidyapeethamFollowed¶75
C.I.T. v/s. Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidyapeetham 232 ITR 170
C.I.T. v/s. Munk Engineers Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶75
C.I.T. v/s. Munk Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 271 ITR 361
Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of IndiaExplained¶119
Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India 1990(47) ELT 213 and 66 ELT 537
D. Navinchandra v/s. Union of IndiaExplained¶118
D. Navinchandra v/s. Union of India 29 ELT 492
B. Vijaykumar v/s. Union of IndiaExplained¶118
B. Vijaykumar v/s. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1794 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Inter Gold (India) Limited
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II
MOHIT S. SHAH
M.S. SANKLECHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
